Earths albedo controlled by cosmic rays

The Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark has been scorn for several years now because of his alternative explanation of how earths temperature varies. His theory states this:

High solar activity is a sign of a strong magnetic field from the sun
->
Strong magnetic field from the sun will decrease the amount of cosmic rays/particles which enters earths atmosphere
->
As these particles are "grains" for condensation of low clouds, a reduction of the incoming particles will result in less low altitude cloud formation (Low clouds are an important factor in reflecting suns incoming energy to earth, that is, increasing earths albedo.)
->
Earths temperature rise

This was the short explanation. The complete text is called "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" [A&G February 2007 - Vol.48].

At the moment it seems like the IPCC has managed to quiet down any alternative explanations to CO2 driven Global Warming.

There must be a people scattered throughout the world who are members on this forum, a lot of them also attending universities/colleges. So what I was wondering about is:
Is there a general acceptance for CO2 as the cause for GW?
Are Henrik Svensmarks theories well known?

Cosmic rays don't seed low clouds, they can be seeded by smoke and pollution particles but not by muons - I call quackery!

There is pretty much acceptance that greenhouse gases (CO2 is the most common but not necessarily the greatest overall effect) cause global warming.

Hmm.. Have you even read any of svensmarks papers?

The cosmic rays referred to are mainly protons (90%) and alfa particles (9%), in energy ranges from 0.01GeV and 15GeV. The theory is based on these rays ionizing and "catalyzing" the formation of condensation cores {"Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud formation - a missing link in solar-climate relationship" [Henrik Svensmark and Egil Friis-Christensen "Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics Vol.59, 1997]}.

A post by a PF member with a low post count
Suggesting that GW doesn't happen
Mentioning a scientist no-one had heard about
With a newly coined term for a new theory
With only a partial reference to a paper ( what is A&G ?)
Alleging a conspiracy by a goverment/internal body to cover it up

A post by a PF member with a low post count
Suggesting that GW doesn't happen
Mentioning a scientist no-one had heard about
With a newly coined term for a new theory
With only a partial reference to a paper ( what is A&G ?)
Alleging a conspiracy by a goverment/internal body to cover it up

Tends to trip the crank detector !

Apology accepted!

I have not, neither has Henrik Svensmark, stated that there is no global warming. The clue is: "what is the source of the global warming" or "what controls the temperature on earth."

I have not alleged there is a conspiracy, people tend to do non-logical things without any conspiracy involved.

No cosmic rays are mostly muons or the decay products of more energetic particles.
Particles can seed clouds (as in a cloud chamber) how much effect they have on an entire planets atmosphere is debatable.

A post by a PF member with a low post count
Suggesting that GW doesn't happen
Mentioning a scientist no-one had heard about
With a newly coined term for a new theory
With only a partial reference to a paper ( what is A&G ?)
Alleging a conspiracy by a goverment/internal body to cover it up

BACK THE TRUCK UP HERE

Earth in physicsforums has a lot of this type of stuff. Svensmark has been discussed in many threads here.

Wikipedia
Cosmic rays are energetic particles originating from space that impinge on Earth's atmosphere. Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons (beta minus particles). The term "ray" is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.

So what I was wondering about is:
Is there a general acceptance for CO2 as the cause for GW?
Are Henrik Svensmarks theories well known?

When you browse through the threads here on the earth forum, you will see a rather balanced approach, and different people have different stances on it. It is not the "anti-AGW bashing" that you might expect. I think people are somewhat divided on the subject (as any good frontier research must be !)

That said, we tend to ban everything which is conspiracy theory - but that doesn't preclude the knowledge that no-AGW proponents have right now more difficulties getting heard than pro-AGW proponents which are on the "politically-correct" wave. That said, it is not because they have a harder time getting published that that automatically means that they must be right

My personal view is that the IPCC "is on something" but oversells it. You cannot deny all of the science work that goes in it, but I think the scientific issues are still far from "settled and certain so that anyone doubting it is a crank", but it is nevertheless suggestive.